ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Breast cancer detection with upstream data fusion, machine learning, and automated registration: initial results.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uncertainty Estimation for Dual View X-ray Mammographic Image Registration Using Deep Ensembles.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop an artificial intelligence algorithm for the detection of breast cancer by combining upstream data fusion (UDF), machine learning (ML), and automated registration, using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and breast ultrasound (US). Approach: Our retrospective study included examinations from 875 women obtained between April 2013 and January 2019. Included patients had a DBT mammogram, breast US, and biopsy proven breast lesion. Images were annotated by a breast imaging radiologist. An AI algorithm was developed based on ML for image candidate detections and UDF for fused detections. After exclusions, images from 150 patients were evaluated. Ninety-five cases were used for training and validation of ML. Fifty-five cases were included in the UDF test set. UDF performance was evaluated with a free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) curve. Results: Forty percent of cases evaluated with UDF (22/55) yielded true ML detections in all three images (craniocaudal DBT, mediolateral oblique DBT, and US). Of these, 20/22 (90.9%) produced a UDF fused detection that contained and classified the lesion correctly. FROC analysis for these cases showed 90% sensitivity at 0.3 false positives per case. In contrast, ML yielded an average of 8.0 false alarms per case. Conclusions: An AI algorithm combining UDF, ML, and automated registration was developed and applied to test cases, showing that UDF can yield fused detections and decrease false alarms when applied to breast cancer detection. Improvement of ML detection is needed to realize the full benefit of UDF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.